excellent mike...

take a look at all the illusions or distortions our own western society lives 
under... what the hell is real?
 merle

  
Bill!,

I have no stake in this topic at all because I don't see the problem with 
thoughts as being whether they are illusory or not, but rather that the 
following of them leads to craving/aversion and thus suffering. The 20 year old 
Edgar is a falsehood and he clearly isn't real, but the the thought itself - 
however delusional and empty - still exists. It arises from previous conditions 
and is itself a condition for further effects. Tests in neuroscience show that 
thoughts need energy and create vibrations. The body can suffer major pathology 
from a thought. In Australia Aborigines die from having a bone pointed at them 
and being cursed. The demon might be a falsehood and not exist, but the thought 
does and has dire consequences.

I found this on wiki regarding 'maya':

Nāgārjuna, of the Mahāyāna Mādhyamika (i.e., "Middle Way") school, discusses 
nirmita,
 or illusion closely related to māyā. In this example, the illusion is a 
self-awareness that is, like the magical illusion, mistaken. For Nagarjuna, the 
self is not the organizing command center of experience, as we might think. 
Actually, it is just one element combined with other factors and strung 
together in a sequence of causally connected moments in time.   [[[As such, the 
self is not substantially real, but neither can it be shown to be unreal]]].    
The continuum of moments, which we mistakenly understand to be a solid, 
unchanging self, still performs actions and undergoes their results. "As a 
magician creates a magical illusion by the force of magic, and the illusion 
produces another illusion, in the same way the agent is a magical illusion and 
the action done is the illusion created by another illusion."[16] What we 
experience may be an illusion, but we are living inside the illusion and bear 
the fruits of our actions there. We undergo the
 experiences of the illusion. What we do affects what we experience, so it 
matters.[17] In this example, Nagarjuna uses the magician's illusion to show 
that the self is not as real as it thinks, yet, to the extent it is inside the 
illusion, real enough to warrant respecting the ways of the world.


The Theravada interpretation of maya works better for me. Instead of meaning 
'illusion' they use the word vipallasa  which translates as 'distortion'. This 
works better for me because it retains the meaning of 'things not being as they 
appear' without relegating them to non-existence.

Hope that helps!

Mike


Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPad 



________________________________
 From:  Bill! <[email protected]>; 
To:  <[email protected]>; 
Subject:  Re: [Zen] Nature of Illusion 
Sent:  Wed, May 29, 2013 10:14:01 AM 


  
Mike,

I'm getting very, very weary of all this.

I could go through your quote below phrase by phrase, line by line to tell you 
why I think it is either wrong or why you are misinterpreting it, but what good 
would that do?  If you and Edgar won't or can't recognize the difference 
between thought and experience, between illusion and Buddha Nature, between 
theology and zen practice then there is just really nothing more I can say.  If 
you can recognize the difference but just don't want to use the word illusion 
then come up with a different word, but a word that discriminates thoughts from 
experience.

YOU (your illusory self) creates thoughts.  YOU terminate them.  Do you really 
think YOU (illusory or not) can actually create and terminate reality?  No!  
YOU can create and terminate thoughts because they are illusions.  You (your 
illusory self) can only PERCEIVE (form thoughts about) reality.  Buddha Nature 
is the experience of reality.

And one more thing...the word 'dharma' was brought to you by the same folks 
that also brought to you the word 'maya'.  Do you think they would have two 
very specific words for what you are claiming is the same thing?

...Bill!

--- In [email protected], uerusuboyo@... wrote:
>
> Bill!,<br/><br/>Just looked up a definition of 'dharma', too.  
> Buddhism.about.com<br/><br/><br/>Definition:<br/>Dharma in both Hinduism and 
> Buddhism refers to the principle or law that orders the universe. In 
> Buddhism, the word in particular points to the law of karma and 
> rebirth.<br/><br/>Because this law was recognized and formulated by the 
> historical Buddha, dharma is most commonly used in Buddhism to mean "the 
> teachings of the Buddha."<br/><br/>Dharma is also used in Mahayana Buddhism 
> to mean "manifestation of reality." This sense can be found in the Heart 
> Sutra, which refers to the voidness or emptiness (shunyata) of all 
> dharmas.<br/><br/>In Theravada Buddhism, dharma is a term for the factors of 
> existence, or the transitory conditions that cause phenomena to come into 
> being.<br/><br/>Dharma is also sometimes used to refer to ethical
 rules and to mental objects or thoughts.<br/><br/><br/> 
>  <br/><br/>So now I think anyone following this thread can see that a thought 
> can be a manifestation of reality I.e, a dharma. Note the word 
> 'reality'!<br/><br/>You're right about the OBJECT not being the problem and I 
> never said it was (which is why I'm not overly concerned about this topic). 
> The answer to the problem is an experiential understanding that the OBJECT is 
> empty of inherent existence and so is impermanent - and grasping at it will 
> lead to suffering. Likewise, the self is an illusion, but the belief it is 
> substantial is a real belief. So the thought of desiring something is still 
> real even though empty (Buddha Nature itself is empty. In fact, emptiness 
> itself is empty!). <br/><br/>For example, if I see a coil of rope in the 
> night and believe it to be a snake, the thought of fear is still real even 
> though the snake itself was an illusion. Saying the thought is an illusion 
> won't do
 me much good the next time I see a snake and it *is* real!
>  Unless of course you argue that both the snake and the fear are illusory, in 
> which case you probably wont be around very long to continue this illusory 
> conversation! <br/><br/>Mike<br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/>Sent from 
> Yahoo! Mail for iPad
>

 
 

Reply via email to